Government response
Introduction
1. The Government is grateful to the Procedure Committee
for undertaking an inquiry into the Programming of Legislation.
This usefully supplements the work done by the Select Committee
on the Modernisation of the House of Commons last year (First
Report, Programming of Bills, Session 2002-03, HC 1222).
2. The programming sessional orders have now been
in force, in their current form, since June 2001. Programming
has become part of our normal legislative procedures. The Government—mindful
that neither the Modernisation Committee nor the Procedure Committee
has opposed the principle of programming—believes that it
is time to make the sessional orders permanent. The Leader of
the House intends to table a motion proposing that the sessional
orders be made permanent Standing Orders of the House, with the
amendments outlined in the response below. We acknowledge that
there has been some concern about how programming has been applied
in practice: we have taken steps in the current Session to address
the recommendations made by the Modernisation Committee last year,
and we accept a number of the recommendations made now by the
Procedure Committee. We continue to be willing to engage in constructive
discussion on the programme for each bill.
The principle of programming
Recommendation 1: We believe that, if programming
were used as originally envisaged by the Modernisation Committee,
namely only when there is cross-party agreement, it would have
the potential to be a more effective way of considering, and improving,
legislation, and we regret that it has come to be seen as the
same as the guillotine, though more widely applied. We recommend
that the sessional orders should be changed to allow programming
motions to be decided without debate only with cross-party support;
on other occasions the Government would, if necessary, have to
justify such a motion in a one-hour debate. In exchange, we would
expect parties to adopt a constructive approach to programming.
(Paragraph 18)
3. The Government is very willing to engage with
the Opposition to try and establish a cross-party approach to
the programming of future bills. But it should be recognised that
there are strong political pressures on the Opposition, be it
of whatever party, to oppose the Government's proposals for timetabling
of all but the least controversial of bills. While the Opposition
may be willing to adopt a pragmatic approach in informal negotiations
through the usual channels, it would be very difficult for it
to sign up publicly to a programme for scrutiny of a Bill to which
it is opposed in principle. The experiment with "agreed programming"
in 1998-2000 demonstrated this very clearly. The effect of the
Committee's recommendation would therefore be that programme motions
would be routinely debated, detaining the House for an additional
hour after the vote on second reading. It is unlikely that this
debate would add significantly to the debate on second reading:
the two frontbenches would probably take somewhat antagonistic
positions, which would serve only to make it more difficult for
both sides to engage subsequently in constructive discussion of
the detailed programme. The Government does not believe that this
would be in the interests of the House.
Programming in standing committee
PROGRAMMING TOO SOON?
Recommendation 2: We believe that it is sensible
to retain the initial practice of setting an "out-date"
for committee in the initial programme motion put to the House,
but believe that this should be taken 48 hours or more after second
reading to allow the "out-date" to take account of the
second reading debate, and any recommendations made, and with
the possibility of voting on an amendment (without debate) before
the main motion; in addition, we expect the Government to be flexible
about adjusting the out-date in the light of experience during
the committee stage. This is particularly important if substantial
Government amendments are tabled, but may also be necessary for
other reasons. (Paragraph 21)
4. The Government agrees that it is sensible for
the initial programming motion to set an out-date; and we will
continue to be flexible about adjusting the out-date if need arises
during the committee stage. The Government is not persuaded that
it is either desirable or necessary to delay consideration of
the initial programme motion till 48 hours or more after second
reading. This would add considerably to the complexity of business
planning and diary management. We believe it is more convenient
for Ministers, Opposition spokesmen and the House as a whole,
to continue to take the initial programme motion immediately after
second reading. If points arise at second reading which suggest
that the out-date should be revised, the programming sub-committee
can take these into account and recommend change, if it thinks
fit.
THE ROLE OF STANDING COMMITTEE CHAIRMEN
Recommendation 3: Chairmen already have the power
to intervene when necessary to suggest a meeting of a programming
sub-committee and some have already done so. We believe that this
is a suitable activity to assist with orderly consideration of
the bill, and that such initiatives behind the scenes should not
give rise to accusations of partiality. (Paragraph 25)
5. The Government notes this conclusion. Undoubtedly,
Standing Committee Chairmen can play an important facilitating
role in negotiations between the parties on the consideration
of bills.
DISPENSING WITH A PROGRAMMING SUB-COMMITTEE
Recommendation 4: A Standing Committee should
be empowered to consider a Government motion embodying any proposal
which could have been reported from a programming sub-committee,
without the need for a sub-committee meeting, unless any member
of the Committee objects when such a motion is moved. (Paragraph
26)
6. The Government accepts this recommendation. We
agree that it would be quicker and less disruptive to proceedings
if, where everyone is content, the Standing Committee could make
decisions to vary the programme without need for the programming
sub-committee to meet. The Leader of the House will table an amendment
to Programming Order C to allow for this.
PRE-LEGISLATIVE SCRUTINY
Recommendation 5: We believe that pre-legislative
scrutiny is desirable in itself, but it does not have any particular
implications for the system of programming. (Paragraph 27)
7. The Government agrees that pre-legislative scrutiny
is desirable and is proud of its record in publishing bills in
draft. While we agree with the Committee that pre-legislative
scrutiny has no particular implications for the system
of programming, the Government believes that the fact that a bill
has undergone pre-legislative scrutiny is a relevant factor to
take into consideration when programming a bill. While the purpose
of pre-legislative scrutiny is to achieve better, rather than
faster, legislation, it is not unreasonable to hope that pre-legislative
scrutiny should ease the passage of bills.
NUMBER OF "KNIVES"
Recommendation 6: We believe that, for most bills,
it is best to have as few internal knives as possible. (Paragraph
30)
8. Occasional internal knives can be valuable in
structuring Standing Committee proceedings, and also in allowing
both Members and outside bodies to know in advance when particular
parts of the bill will be reached. What is best in practice will
vary from bill to bill. However, the Government agrees that, in
principle, it is best to avoid too many internal knives, and has
responded to concerns expressed in evidence to the Modernisation
Committee last year by significantly reducing the number of internal
knives this Session.
DELAYING KNIVES
Recommendation 7: We believe that the Chairman
should have discretion to delay the falling of a knife by up to
15 minutes where this is judged to be for the general convenience
of the committee (during which time amendments to a programming
order could be considered if necessary). To avoid committee sittings
overlapping with Question Time in the House, a knife due to fall
at the end of a morning sitting would be moved to early in the
afternoon sitting (rather than delay the end of the morning sitting).
(Paragraph 35)
9. The Government is not persuaded that it is necessary
to increase the formal powers of Standing Committee Chairmen in
the way the Committee recommends. If there is agreement on all
sides, it is always possible to revise a programme at short notice
to postpone the falling of a knife. The change proposed in recommendation
4 above, to allow the Standing Committee to agree changes to the
programme without need for a programming sub-committee, would
make this easier still.
Recommendation 8: In addition, when a committee
has been suspended because of divisions in the House, any knife
due to fall later in the same sitting should be delayed by a time
equal to the length of the suspension. (Paragraph 36)
10. The Government is not persuaded that it is necessary
to provide for "injury time" for suspensions because
of divisions in the House. To do so would make timings uncertain,
which would be inconvenient for all members of the Standing Committee.
The marked reduction in the number of internal knives has greatly
reduced the scope for problems of the kind identified by the Committee.
LATER SITTINGS
Recommendation 9: If the time available for considering
a bill is considered inadequate, longer afternoon sittings may
sometimes be a reasonable option as an alternative to a later
out-date. (Paragraph 38)
11. The Government shares the Committee's view that
longer afternoon sittings may be a reasonable alternative to a
later out-date.
INTERVALS BETWEEN STAGES
Recommendation 10: We agree with the Modernisation
Committee that the Government should inform the programming sub-committee
if the report stage is likely to be delayed, so that it might
propose a later out-date. (Paragraph 41)
12. The Government has noted this recommendation,
and the related recommendation from the Modernisation Committee.
Business planning is inherently flexible, and subject to change,
but if reason for significant delay to report stage arises while
a bill is still in standing committee, allowing scope for extension
to the out-date, the Government will discuss this in the usual
channels.
TIME LIMITS ON SPEECHES
Recommendation 11: We do not wish to recommend
the introduction of speech limits in standing committee. However,
we expect Ministers opening debates or replying to them to have
regard to the time available, and also urge shadow spokesmen and
the committee as a whole to use good sense in deciding the length
of their speeches. (Paragraph 42)
13. The Government notes that the Committee does
not recommend the introduction of speech limits in standing committee.
We accept that Ministers should have regard to the time available
when opening debates and replying to them, and this applies to
debates on the Floor and in Westminster Hall as well as in standing
committee. Departments have been reminded of this. We hope that
shadow spokesmen will also take note of the Committee's recommendation.
Technical amendments to sessional orders
Recommendation 12: We recommend that suitable
drafting changes be made to the sessional orders when they are
next renewed, to meet the points made by the Clerk of the House.
(Paragraph 46)
14. The Government accepts this recommendation. The
motion which the Leader of the House will table will incorporate
the technical amendments proposed by the Clerk of the House and
recommended by the Committee.
Report stage
Recommendation 13: We recommend that the Government
should table its amendments for report stage in good time. (Paragraph
50)
15. The Government will make best endeavours to table
amendments for report stage in good time.
Recommendation 14: We believe that a factual statement
of clauses and schedules not considered in Committee should be
produced; it would clearly demonstrate to Members who had not
been on the Committee, in a convenient form, which parts of the
bill had not been debated. (Paragraph 52)
16. The Government is not persuaded that it would
be useful to produce a statement of clauses and schedules not
considered in Committee. Such information would be misleading.
Clauses and schedules may not be debated for a variety of reasons,
not least because they are uncontroversial. And, though a clause
itself may not be debated, it may well be that amendments on that
clause have been well debated with groups of amendments on earlier
clauses. If Members wish to know whether debate in Standing Committee
was curtailed by the operation of the programme motion, this information
is readily available through reading the Standing Committee Hansard.
It should be appreciated, however, that, as the Modernisation
Committee recognised, there never was a "golden age"
of full scrutiny of all clauses of all bills.
Third Reading
Recommendation 15: We believe that the House will
usually want to spend most of the time available considering amendments
on report, rather than debating third reading at length. (Paragraph
55)
17. The Government agrees with this conclusion, which
reflects current practice.
Carry-over
Recommendation 16: We believe that carry-over
increases flexibility and has the potential to lessen bottlenecks
in the legislative process, but believe that the Government is
right to introduce carry-over gradually; however, we also believe
that this should proceed with cross-party agreement. (Paragraph
62)
18. The Government welcomes the Committee's recognition
of the advantages of carry-over and its commendation of the gradual
approach we have taken. The Government believes that it would
be timely to consider whether the temporary Standing Order on
carry-over of Bills should be made permanent: the Leader of the
House will table a motion to this effect for the House to decide
upon.
| 
